Posted on 01/06/2012 2:02:27 PM PST by neverdem
For the past two weeks Iran has committed a sizable portion of its military to rehearsing how it would go about closing the Hormuz Strait. For the most part, strategic analysts yawned, and declared Iranian blustering to be an empty threat. Judging from the oil markets’ relatively muted reaction, it appears that most of the folks who bet big money on what happens in the Persian Gulf share this opinion. So what is this consensus based on? First and foremost, it relies on the belief that the Iranian leadership will make a number of rational calculations and decisions concerning their own and their country’s future. Personally, I am not sure of the wisdom of betting on the rationality of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a few globally disconnected mullahs.
As the “Iran is bluffing” crowd sees it, Iran does not the possess the military wherewithal to close the strait: disrupt traffic, yes; close it, no. Everyone also assumes that Iran’s leaders understand that closing the strait would mean that Iran’s own oil shipments would cease. As Iran’s oil exports account for a almost a fifth of its GDP and fund 60 percent of its national budget, even a temporary closing of the strait would be an economic catastrophe. Moreover, as Iran still relies on imports for much of its refined fuel, any closure of the strait would rapidly shut down huge segments of its non-oil economy.
#ad#As the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, however, these Iranian exercises closely coincide with “the U.S. and Europe at last mustering the gumption to target [with sanctions] Iran’s multibillion-dollar oil industry.” If sanctions do put a serious crimp in Iran’s oil and gas exports, the mullahs may decide there is little difference between the West’s closing off their access to export revenues and their doing it themselves — except that in the latter circumstance the rest of the world would share Iran’s pain. As the political and economic situation in Iran moves from dismal to catastrophic, one can easily envision internal scenarios where closing the Strait of Hormuz begins to appears as a rational option.
It may be true that, even if Iran wanted to close the strait, its military, when confronted by the U.S. Fifth Fleet, would be incapable of doing so. One should not, however, be sanguine about this being the case. Iran has hundreds of ballistic missiles, three Kilo-class submarines, and a host of fast attack boats (armed with anti-ship missiles). There is no end to the mischief a clever opponent can make with such an arsenal. For instance, in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war game, retired Marine lieutenant general Paul Van Riper, playing the Iranian side’s commander, caused so much damage to the U.S. and allied fleet that the game had to be stopped. Only after the fleet was resurrected from the bottom of the sea was the game able to continue.
Even this, however, misses the point. To create massive global economic dislocation, the Iranians do not have to keep the strait closed or even close it at all. All they have to do is make it difficult for ships to transit. On a daily basis approximately 15 supertankers make their way through the strait, carrying over 15 million barrels of oil — a sixth of the world’s supply. Any real threat to these shipments would see insurance rates skyrocket, assuming that shipping companies, captains, and crews even wanted to risk the trip.
Moreover, if the Iranians did try to close the strait, it is unlikely they would limit themselves to just that action. Rather, we could expect Iran to sow mines throughout the Persian Gulf, particularly just outside ports and within the shipping lanes. Saudi Arabia would probably have to endure a barrage of hundreds of missiles, most of them aimed at oil-shipment chokepoints, such as the stabilization plant at Abqaiq. These would be closely followed by as many air sorties as Iran’s 100-plus attack aircraft could launch before they were overwhelmed by U.S. airpower. All of this would be catastrophic to the global economy, and we have not even considered what damage Iran’s special forces or its sponsored terrorist groups might do. It is also worth noting that most of Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich areas are populated by Shias, who may have some sympathy for their co-religionists in Iran. Finally, we have not even considered the possibility that Iranian conventional forces, taking advantage of our withdrawal from Iraq, might move into Basra to interrupt Iraqi, and possibly Kuwaiti, oil shipments.
So, what happens if Iran does strike with its entire arsenal of options? For one thing, oil immediately spikes to $200 a barrel, and the price of gas tops $15 or $20 a gallon. This, in turn, will snuff out the nascent global economic recovery, and we can count on a sharp recession. How fast and decisively U.S. and other world leaders react will decide the deepness and length of this recession. A rapid release of the strategic petroleum reserves would soon bring down oil prices. Moreover, the world has enough oil in strategic reserves to make up expected losses from Iranian attacks for a little over a year. The United States, therefore, has that long to both demolish Iranian offensive capabilities and repair the damage. In short, if the world acts decisively, an Iranian attack would cause a severe, but short-lived, economic dislocation.
Of course, everything becomes harder if Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, everything becomes much easier if the West strikes first.
— Jim Lacey is the professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. He is the author of The First Clash and Keep from All Thoughtful Men. The opinions in this article are entirely his own and do not represent those of the Department of Defense or any of its members.
If you enter Iran Venezuela in Google News' query box, there's a story in Business Insider from yesterday about this base.
FYI.
and then there is this :
US Navy rescues Iranians held hostage by pirates
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16447862
Where was the Iranian navy , in the face of this capture of their own fishermen by pirates ?
Engaged in their circle jerk ashore no doubt .
I hope they try something , so we can sink their entire Navy proceed to bomb the Mullahs out of existence.
Would be great , no ?
It might be worth 2 weeks of high prices to take these lunatics out now. Don’t forget, this whole situation is
brought about because the crazies running Iran are building an atomic bomb which they say is to blow up Israel.
The mullahs cannot be “bombed out of existence”.
It is amazing to me that conservatives, even here, are constantly bullshitting about beating Iran from the air.
IF we are going to defeat the enemy (and by defeat, I mean, change their society and it’s military expression from hostile to friendly), we have to conquer and occupy their home nations, extirpate Islam, and reeducate their children and grandchildren.
This will require an Army of 80-100 divisions, a greatly enlarged expeditionary Marine Corps, and a thousand ship Navy.
Now, I can happily consider the argument for this. I MADE this argument in October 2001.
What I do NOT want to listen to is another argument for defeat on the installment plan with thousands dead, tens of thousands maimed, trillions spent, and the enemy stronger at the end.
If we are not prepared to defeat the enemy (and there is NO evidence that we are) we should be seeking terms.
Bombing Iran would be an incredibly foolish and reckless policy with no possibility of a favorable outcome.
Which means, probably, that that’s exactly what we will do
You make some good points.
Consider this, we could exterminate their radar, air force and navy in about a week.
They would flood and occupy southern Iraq & Kuwait with ground troops. We would need another Desert Storm to get them out and it would be a catastrophic fight.
No, we will conduct a tit for tat confrontation for years.
Yes, I am well aware of the damage we could do to their air and naval assets.
This would start the war they want.
What then is the plan for victory? Don’t tell me it’s sending a Persian restaurant owner from Beverly Hills over there to be “President”, along with Barbara Boxer to tell them how to treat their women and Hillary Clinton to enlighten them about homosexuality, while taking casualties at a low but steady rate for years to demonstrate that we are serious, when every other aspect of our policy demonstrates the opposite.
No more of that, thanks.
I believe I’m in line with your comments when I propose that crunching Iran to any extent would require undoing centuries, from Mohammed back to Abraham, of civilization. As done in the past Western Civilization must be isolated from any influence/impact of Islam. We, the people of the USA and other western nations have allowed, because of need and greed, to let the camel so to speak get his nose to far ibto our tent.
Ignorant people are excited to repeat this story, as if the military officers in command didn't notice. An informed opinion would assume that the "lessons learned" have been applied, in spades, to the actual situation.
The occurrence of this exercise is, or should be, a source of increased confidence-- that if the Iranians use the same tactics as this Marine general did, they will meet a woeful end.
And that boys and girls is why we have "war games" in the first place.
This statement defies all logic. Gasoline today costs about $3 per gallon with oil at about $100 per barrel. How does doubling the price of oil cause gasoline to go up six fold?
With such (ill)logic, how does anyone believe the rest of the story?
I agree with the thrust of the article 100%. All I would add is that the Iranian leaders would rather play for time until they have deliverable nuclear weapons. They would rather go into a war holding aces and kings than jacks and queens.
I see the same end game, no matter how the big dance starts, or where.
“We’re going to find out, sooner or later, if Abdul will pray, to a glowing crater.”
We might not do it, but the Israelis, Russians, Indians etc surely would. In a flash, if they lost a city to an islamic WMD.
No matter what the nationality of origin, it’s all the “islamic ummah.”
Because then every country and every corporation would have to BID for the remaining fuel.
If a bug destroyed half of the world’s wheat, the price of a loaf of bread would not only double, I assure you.
You're confusing oil with refined fuel. The article already asserts that the price of OIL would double. It is OIL that flows out of the gulf. The only refined FUEL passing through the gulf is FUEL delivered to Iran. With the gulf closed, there would be even more fuel available, since Iran wouldn't be getting any.
Victory is not the goal. Our goals are containment missions. It is a given that they will develop nukes.
Iran wants to buy and sell freely, we control the ability for their currency to move and their oil to be shipped. That is where we need to act and get containment results.
I don’t think either one of you are understanding we only need to make them spend more money than they can afford. What we are currently doing in Iraq is a waste of time, imo. With Iran, I would stop after destroying their air power, navy, communications, rail and highway bridges, and public utilities. Then impose strict sanctions and blockades. When their economy is reduced to the exporting of oil to finance their corrupt government, we win. When their ground forces invade Iraq and Kuwait, let them. All we need to do is maintain a perimeter around our embassies and provide equipment and air support to Iraqi fighters. Every time Iran repairs or rebuilds something, we bomb it. In under 3 years time they will have a worthless currency, no ability to enforce laws, and in civil war with probably more than 2 sides fighting each other. Even if the Iraqis end up losing a war against Iran, we still win if the end result is a destroyed Iranian economy and Iranian civil war.
We can destroy their economy in 24 hours by shutting down their national bank and ending all wireless communication.
Our goal is to restrict spending by restricting income. Cut off their income and they’re buying of anything becomes irrelevant.
We can’t have Iranians occupying Iraqi and Kuwaiti oilfields, been there, done that. We don’t want to have to send in ground troops again, which we would have to do.
Iraqi forces are not up to the task, many are shia and wouldn’t fight their fellow shias from Iran.
We aren’t ready or willing for the kind of ground war that Iran offers. Containment is the only rational policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.